About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law begone -- belongs to democrats like bill bradley and the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, not only voted for it, fight with the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach but a good deal of sense at the time. then as now, the code was littered with agrees is loopholes that needed to be reform. recall the so-called passive loss schools that were in place but then. they allowed wealthy taxpayers to gain the system. someone could invest in a bowling alley and then, if the bullets lost money, they could take a ride up many times larger than their initial money and what of their entire income tax liability. we need to get rid of such a gimmicky tax shelter. puring these loopholes allowed us
to deficit reduction rather than tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. charles schumer was speaking at the national press club in washington about the fiscal cliff, those expiring tax and budget cuts that go into effect in january. this is just under an hour. >> good morning. we're starting right on time today. i want to thank you for coming. i want to take up those of use who are joining us on seemed span. i am a member of the newsmaker committee of the national press club. on behalf of the national press club, we are honored to have charles schumer. the senator will address the topic of tax reform, and i want to say this is an appropriate tax -- topic. time, theus' prevailing idea was that there were dragons just over the horizon. columbus thought he could find a new route, and today we will be exploring new routes to tax reform. the senator will talk for approximately 25 minutes, and and it we will open up the news conference to questions. senator? thank you for that timely introduction. i want to thank the national press club. here is what i said yesterday -- [speaking italian]
means blowing up the deficit or raising taxes on middle-class families. one or the other. pick your poison. last week, mitt romney said, there is no addition to the deficit with my tax plan. if he says it is not true, then it is not true. ok. it is true that it is not going to add to the deficit, that leaves only one option. that is asking middle-class families to foot the bill by getting rid of the deductions for owning a home, raising kids, or sending them to college. as it turned out, most folks do not like that idea either. just last week, on stage, governor romney decided that instead of changing his plan, he would pretended did not exist. what $5 trillion tax cut? i do not know anything about that tax cut. pay no attention to the tax cut under the carpet, behind the curtain. when he was asked how he would cut the deficit, he said he could make the math work by eliminating local public funding for pbs. by the way, this is not new. this is what he has been saying every time he is asked a question. we can cut out pbs. for all you moms and kids out there, do not worry. somebody is
dust of trickle-down economics will somehow erase any damage to the deficit or hold harmless the middle class -- it is a mirage. it is not realistic. the broader issues of tax reform are something that very much interest the president of united states, but has always -- his approach is always that everyone has to pay their fair share, everyone has to pay their -- everyone has to get a fair shot. in the debate he is having with the election and has been having with republicans on capitol hill, if we take a balanced approach that includes increased revenues by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more, we can reduce our deficit significantly -- $4 trillion -- while making sure that the middle class does not have its taxes go up and making sure that we invest in education and infrastructure and innovation. the alternative choice that has been presented is that we should lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires and in order to pay for that, we have to turn medicare into a voucher program. we have to get investments in education and innovation, research and developme
administration does not really care about the deficit and how high it is getting. why would you raise the deficit when you owe so much money? it will bankrupt our country. host: what do you do a in redmond, ore.? caller: i am a full-time student at a community college and i also work at a fast-food restaurant to pay bills. host: where are you studying? caller: criminal-justice. host: where are you watching c- span at 6:00 a.m. in the morning in oregon? caller: i get up early allot. earlier, i was watching a different program, in b.c. i think, and i think there were a lot of very baidoa -- nbc, i think, and i think there were a lot of very biased reporters. i switched channels. host: is this your first time watching c-span? caller: no, it is now. i actually watched it a lot. host: that is there a studying criminal justice in redmond, ore.. next up is michael in springdale, another first-time voter. caller: i was flipping through the channels here and listening to a lot of individuals call in and one of the topics that came up is the military. and being a first-time voter, i want to say that as a v
of this bill is a $460 billion deficit. the second cost has a $1.7 trillion deficit. the most cynical give a guy in this bill is something we probably all agree on -- we do not think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stopped those cuts from occurring every year the last seven years. according to your numbers, this costs $371 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills, but because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, that provision was taken out, and it has been going on in stand-alone legislation. but ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. when you take a look at all of this, it just does not add up. i will finish with the cost curve. are we bending the cost curve down or up? if you look in your own chief actuary at medicare, we are bending it up. he is claiming we are going up $221 billion, adding more to the fiscally unstable situation we have. when you look at this, it is really deeper than deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. there really is a difference
're facing absolutely massive deficits. this administration has chosen to ignore it. the president has failed, put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everyone believes everything is coming up roses, perhaps the vice- president should join me as i travel around the country and speak to people. people in pennsylvania are not terribly thrilled with what happening in the economy. people in youngstown, ohio have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. it's not only the old industries that are not -- in san jose, calif., they are complaining because they cannot export their high-quality goods to japan and other countries. people in the northwest and in the state of oregon are complaining about what's happening to the timber industry and agriculture industry. things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to believe in their television commercials. my feeling quite frankly is i have enough experience to see the problems, address them, and make the tough decision that level of people with reference to this problem. >> despite the historic aspects of
on deficit reduction requiring the wealthy to pay more and more cutting in the federal government. >> you have 90 seconds. >> again, shame on you. you thought this campaign is going to be a coronation because you're a democrat and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman and you are desperate. therefore you raise these issues. my plan sites every word that i used from the brightest in the best to but my plan together. you would be better served to be putting a plan together. you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans. to be honest about your attendance in washington. shame on you for taking this direction with this campaign. it is beneath you. and the people of connecticut deserve better. in my plan, i have referenced a tax cut for the middle class. my plan, if you take a look at it, absolutely keeps taxes the same across the board accept we're going to cut taxes for the middle class. my plan is the only one that has an actual middle-class tax cut. congressman murphy has voted to raise taxes on the middle class o
a budget deficit of $1.30 trillion and a $16 trillion debt. >> the question would be, is it worth not getting these benefits to the veterans if it means no more lard? >> what happens is those bills will be brought right back. they are popular pieces of legislation. people want to support veterans and they should. when this ad ran that claimed that i would deny care for veterans with missing limbs and legs, it did. it showed pictures of them. my father is a korean war veteran. my brother has done two tours in afghanistan, two in iraq. april white, when she saw that ad, she called our office and said that may be sick because when i cannot get the benefits i was due only one person without the and that was jeff flake. >> let's look at the facts. we can stipulate -- my father and uncle served in combat. my brother served 30 years and special forces. that is not the issue. the congressman is trying to evade the issue. there are three specific bills he voted against those issues. it is not only me. the iraqi-afghanistan veterans organization gave him an f. the vietnam veterans gave him
it done. the failure of the joint deficit committee has left us with the looming arbitrary cuts. those will be mentioned from up here and down there. i'm pleased that the house essentially passed a bill that said no, these impending cuts aren't going to affect military families and certainly i think that's all of our position. we'd like the administration to clarify that that is set in concrete. so again, certainly, as you said commander, we must make it clear that under no circumstances we will not balance the budget on the backs of our men and women in uniform and our veterans. [applause]. i thought you all were napping. and again the good news is i think we're all on board. thanks for your neverts suicide prevention. that's something we work on hard here. there's just a number of things in regard to that. the other thing that i'm concerned about is military voting. that is something that if anybody has a right to vote, it's the men and women that are serving overseas. so i think in a very bipartisan way we're working to ensure that is not going to be a problem. so we're going to pre
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10